Dumbest thoughts of the day - Resolved

I had a thought this morning that I will not disclose. Immediately thereafter, I had a 2nd thought - "That previous thought was the dumbest thing I have thought so far today." Then I had a 3rd thought - "How many times a day does thought #2 apply, on average?" That is, on average, how many times a day can I say "My previous thought was the dumbest thing I have thought of thus far today"?

Assumptions (not really necessary, but just to clarify):
You have n thoughts a day (or 100, if you wish)
Each thought can be given an objective "intelligence rating"
No 2 thoughts have the same rating (continuous scale)
Intelligence level of any thought can be treated as an iid rv - that is, the intelligence of any given thought does not depend on the thoughts that came before it.
The pdf of individual thought intelligence is irrelevant, so if you wish, you can assume something simple, like normal or uniform.

Let's hear it.

 

I'm sure there's some more elegant solution to this problem but... I don't remember much from stochastic processes. I'll offer one bit of the solution.

Let X_1, X_2, X_3, ... be the objective "intelligence rating" for the first, second, third, and so on thought. Then {X} is an i.i.d random variable. For simplicity, thoughts are on a continuous scale, the average thought will be given the value 0, and the distribution of thoughts is symmetrical. Thus {X} is a continuous random variable symmetrically centered at 0.

Furthermore, let X_n+1 = X_n when X_n

 

I disagree with above solution, since you require knowing the distribution, but as I said above, the distribution is actually irrelevant to the answer. The answer should not vary based on distribution, hence you can't need to know it. Thank you for the effort though.

I am not sure if treating this as a stochastic process is the way to go though. I have been trying to find a decent combinatoric solution, which I think is feasible if you just arrange all N thoughts in order of intelligence, and then determine in how many ways they can fall out in that order.

However, to be fair, I don't know the answer or the solution. I did run a few simulations though, and they have been consistent with my combinatorial approach. (The simulations involved uniform distribution).

 

Are you assuming your thoughts are on a discrete scale?? And also how are you using combinatorics??? Because you don't know how many ties there are in intelligence ratings which is what thwarts a ranking methodology (e.g. if the 4th dumbest thought happens after the 5th dumbest thought and they are equally low in intelligence rating, then strictly speaking, it would be incorrect to say "That was the dumbest thing I have thought so far today"

 

TPride, thanks for taking the time to think about this. I am not using discrete scaling, as mentioned in original post, so no two will ever be equal to each other. However, I still disagree with you based on the reasons I stated above - the distribution does not affect the answer, hence anything that uses the distribution must be flawed. I tested this via simulation, and the answer I achieved via combinatorics was confirmed for both uniform and normal distribution. I think that is sufficient evidence to conclude the distribution does not matter.

My reasoning is as follows:

Start with a small n, 1 through 4 for example. Sort the thoughts in order of stupidity (dumbest is #1). Then list all the possible orders in which these thoughts can fall out - there should be a total of n! of these possibilities. My assumption that appears to be correct but that I can't prove is that each permutation is just as likely. This seems intuitive for small samples, and I think should scale up. Let me know your thoughts about this assumption.

So if you have 1 thought, it must come first and obviously the expectation is 1.

If you have 2 thoughts and sort them in order of stupidity as described above, then there are 2! = 2 possibilities, each equally likely. Either the dumbest one comes first and other one second, or reverse. So expectation is 1/2 * 1 + 1/2 * 2 = 1.5

If you have 3 thooughts, the following are the 3!=6 possibilities for how they can fall out:

Keep in mind that the list below is sorted by stupidity, dumbest first, and the number denotes the order in which you had the thought. 1 2 3 (dumbest thought came first, so you could say "dumbest thing I thought today" only that one time.) 1 3 2 (dumbest thought came first, so you could say "dumbest thing I thought today" only that one time.) 2 1 3 (here, the dumbest thought came out of your head 2nd, and the 2nd dumbest came out first, so 2) 2 3 1 (here, the dumbest thought came out of your head 3rd, and the 2nd dumbest came out first, so 2) 3 1 2 (here, the dumbest thought came out 3rd, and the 2nd dumbest 1st, so 2) 3 2 1 (here, your thoughts got dumber each time, so 3) So expectation is 1/6(21 + 32 + 13) = 11/6 = 1.833. This has been confirmed to be correct via simulation for normal and uniform thoughts.

If you have 4 thoughts, there are 4! = 24 possibilities. I will not list them out, thought I did on paper. The expectation turns out to be 1/24(61+112+63+1*4) = 50/24 = 2.083. This has been confirmed to be correct via simulation for normal and uniform thoughts.

My problem is I am not sure how to scale this up to n, but I do believe the approach is correct. I have been looking for a pattern that I can express combinatorically for the coefficients within the expectation - so the 6, 11, 6 and 1 in the n=4 case. However, I am looking into determining the exact coefficients for n=5 through 8 or 9 via computer to have more sample data.

Admittedly, I do not know stochastic calc so I do not exactly follow your steps, but could you find your answer for n=3 or n=4 using your method (assuming uniform or normal, since that seems to be a part of it) and see if it matches the figures above?

 

You are close so here is a hint. Given how complicated you are trying to make this, I'm surprised you haven't commented on the obvious pattern.

You commented that for n = 1, 2, 3, 4 you had answers of E(n) = 1, 1.5, 1.833, 2.083.

Let's take a look at delta_E(n): 1, 0.5, 0.33, 0.25.

Do we notice any patterns here?

The answer to your question is the summation for n from 1 to infinity of 1/n (if we assume you can have infinity thoughts in one day). If I recall these are known as Taylor series, and if I recall correctly from my calculus days, this one does not converge. So if you are having problems answering this brain teaser, fear not! There is no answer (the result is infinite).

-BigBaby

P.S. I haven't done Taylor series since early 2006 during my senior year of high school, so if that's all right it will be a significant boost to my already considerable opinion of my own faculty with numbers. I think my hedge fund is going to love me.

 
Best Response

Your observation is spot on, and I realized it myself after taking a good look at the numbers. However, that is not a Taylor series, though you are correct that this harmonic series does not converge, but that fact is irrelevant to the question since a finite n is is assumed/implied.

So the expected number of dumbest thoughts you can have in a day, if you have n thoughts, is the sum [from k=1 to n] of 1/k. For large values of n, this approaches the function f(n) = ln(n) - y, where y is the Euler-Mascheroni constant, or about 0.577.

Now that we know the answer, it makes remarkable sense - every Nth thought has a 1/n chance of being dumber than all of (n-1) random similarly distributed previous thoughts, so you add 1/n to the expectation for each new thought you have. Very elegant solution to a problem that initially appeared very difficult.

This problem would make a great question for a quant-ish interview.

 
giants92:
Too much time on your hands. I thought this was the investment banking message board. You're about 14 math courses too high.

My apologies if I posted in the wrong forum. As far as too much time on my hands, I needed to do something on my way to work the morning I had this dumb thought, and I generally find questions of this type interesting. I was thinking others in the forum might as well, and judging from comments above, it appears I was right. And everything discussed above is in an intro to probability course (kind of).

 
HarvardOrBust:
Wasn't the answer obvious...

I would disagree. If you read through, there appear to be a decent amount of math-wise folks who did not think it was obvious. In fact, I am still not 100% sure as to why the successive probabilities are independent of each other. I suspect they might not be, but in real life/a large-enough simulation they end up converging to values indicated by the harmonic series, even though each individual one is not in fact independent. So variance of the individual runs might be much higher than one would expect if the events were independent.

I am still analyzing this aspect of it. I would appreciate your contribution to the topic.

Nevertheless, the answer stated in my previous post is correct, as tested under standard and fairly bizzare conditions. And I do agree that it sounds quite elegant, but the reason I was not ready to jump to it is the question about independence. Once again, if you have any comments about the independence question, I would be very interested in hearing them.

 

Velit quia et quisquam ut doloribus quis. Et eum iste repellendus quidem molestias sequi.

Quo reiciendis aperiam ipsam fugiat. Nihil tenetur eligendi sequi vero quos quod facilis accusamus. Reiciendis iste temporibus natus quisquam dicta debitis corrupti sit. Velit ut quis quasi earum voluptatem. Architecto minima cum voluptas.

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (202) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (144) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”